Associations between perceived positive and negative parental contact and adolescents’ intergroup contact experiences

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijintrel

Associations between perceived positive and negative parental contact and adolescents’ intergroup contact experiences

T

Sabahat Cigdem Bagci , Hazal Gungor ⁎

Isik University, Turkey

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Parents Positive contact Negative contact Attitudes Behavioral tendencies

This study investigated the association between perceived parental positive and negative contact and adolescents’ own positive and negative contact experiences and tested perspective-taking, intergroup anxiety, outgroup attitudes, and approach behavioral tendencies as potential mediators. A total of 325 7th and 8th Year Turkish students completed questionnaires in classrooms (Mage = 13.46, SD = 0.75). Structural equation models demonstrated that percieved negative parental contact was directly and strongly associated with negative, but not positive, adolescent contact, whereas parental positive contact had a direct positive association with adolescent positive contact. We further found that perceived parental positive contact was related to higher perspective-taking and lower intergroup anxiety which promoted approach behavioral tendencies which was, in turn, related to more positive and less negative contact among adolescents. The study highlights the critical function of parental positive and negative contact on the formation of adolescents’ contact behaviors.

Introduction Interactions that cross group boundaries play a special role in child development. Especially positive contact experiences such as cross-group friendships do not only promote positive intergroup attitudes via increased perspective-taking and cultural openness, and decreased intergroup anxiety in a multicultural context (e.g., Abbott & Cameron, 2014; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), but they also provide a number of positive developmental outcomes including greater psychological resilience (Bagci, Rutland, Kumashiro, Smith, & Blumberg, 2014), increased sense of safety and decreased sense of vulnerability (e.g., Graham, Munniksma, & Juvonen, 2014; Munniksma & Juvonen, 2012), as well as better academic outcomes (Bagci, Kumashiro, Rutland, Smith, & Blumberg, 2017) and social skills (Lease & Blake, 2005). While this literature has long concentrated on the consequences of intergroup contact during childhood years, especially in terms of intergroup attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Feddes, Noack, & Rutland, 2009), more recent research has paved the way to understanding how contact experiences are formed in the first place (e.g., Cameron & Turner, 2017; Paolini, Harwood, Hewstone, & Neumann, 2018; Turner & Cameron, 2016). The current research aims to extend this literature by revealing the role of perceived positive and negative parental contact on adolescents’ positive and negative intergroup contact experiences among a sample of Turkish students and examining perspective-taking, intergroup anxiety, outgroup attitudes, and approach behavioral tendencies, as possible mediating mechanisms on these relationships.

⁎

Corresponding author at: Isik University, Department of Psychology, Şile, İstanbul, 34980, Turkey. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.C. Bagci).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019.01.002 Received 14 May 2018; Received in revised form 2 January 2019; Accepted 20 January 2019 0147-1767/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

Intergroup contact Previous research has shown that bringing different group members in a positive contact environment is likely to improve intergroup relationships. Intergroup Contact Theory’s (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1998) major assertion is that positive intergroup contact experiences may reduce prejudice and foster positive intergroup attitudes, tolerance, and social inclusion by enabling harmonious intergroup relationships in societies. Consistent evidence, using a variety of research designs across different socio-cultural contexts, has shown intergroup contact to be related to many positive intergroup processes such as increased outgroup trust, reconciliation efforts, positive behavioral tendencies, as well as reduced infrahumanization and discrimination (e.g., Brown, Eller, Leeds, & Stace, 2007; Hewstone, Cairns, Voci, Hamberger, & Niens, 2006; Jasinskaja-Lahti, Mähönen, & Liebkind, 2012;). Positive contact experiences are most likely to be important during childhood and adolescence, since previous research has shown these experiences to be a critical determinant of intergroup attitudes and behaviors in later stages of life (Emerson, Kimbro, & Yancey, 2002; Fischer, 2008; Stearns, Buchmann, & Bonneau, 2009), which makes the cultivation of positive intergroup behaviors in childhood and adolescence an important study area for intergroup relations researchers. The contact literature has often concentrated on children’s and adolescents’ cross-group friendships which are a particularly strong form of intergroup contact, because they involve a positive and reciprocal intergroup relationship that is often stable over time. The relevant literature has demonstrated that such cross-group friendships are cross-sectionally and longitudinally related to more positive outgroup attitudes through various mechanisms such as increased self-disclosure and positive social norms about cross-group friendships (Feddes et al., 2009; Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007; Wölfer, Schmid, Hewstone, & Zalk, 2016). Moreover, cross-group friendships have been found to provide unique psychosocial benefits for children’s development including psychological well-being, sense of safety, and social skills (e.g. Bagci et al., 2014; Graham et al., 2014; Kawabata & Crick, 2008). Although the consequences of intergroup contact experiences among children have been frequently studied in developmental and social psychology literature, this literature provides less information about psycho-social predictors of intergroup contact. Recently, Turner and Cameron (2016) suggested an integrative model in which they investigated specific components of ‘confidence in contact’ – a state of readiness for engaging in positive intergroup contact experiences. The authors proposed a number of personal and structural variables such as self-efficacy, school racial climate, empathy, and positive intergroup attitudes, each contributing to confidence in contact which in turn increases the likelihood of actual cross-group friendships (see also Cameron, Turner, Bagci, Morais, Carby, under review; Cameron & Turner, 2017). According to the model, children and adolescents should be equipped with necessary skills to gain confidence in contact, which would consequently promote actual cross-group friendships and such crossgroup friendships should then feed back the formation of positive intergroup attitudes. One gap in this literature is our current lack of knowledge about the antecedents of negative contact experiences during these years. Recent research in the contact literature has shown that intergroup contact experiences may not unconditionally involve a positive encounter, but they may also contain negative interactions that could also contribute, sometimes even more strongly, to the formation of intergroup attitudes (e.g., Barlow et al., 2012; Graf, Paolini, & Rubin, 2014; Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2010). Accordingly, negative contact has been suggested to increase category salience which would generalize to outgroup attitudes more easily and thereby have a greater impact on the formation of attitudes (Brown & Hewstone, 2005). Although recent empirical studies have drawn attention to negative contact’s detrimental effects which may outweigh the benefits of positive contact on the formation of positive intergroup relationships (e.g., Barlow et al., 2012), other research has demonstrated positive contact experiences to be more critical than negative contact experiences (e.g., Bagci & Turnuklu, 2018; Pettigrew, Tropp, Wagner, & Christ, 2011), or both positive and negative contact to be equally likely to affect intergroup outcomes in opposite directions (Árnadóttir, Lolliot, Brown, & Hewstone, 2018; Mazziotta, Rohmann, Wright, Tezanos‐Pinto, & Lutterbach, 2015; Visintin, Green, Pereira, & Miteva, 2017). Moreover, the so-called positive-negative assymetry in contact ratings is somehow balanced by the superiority of positive contact over negative contact in terms of quantity (e.g., Graf et al., 2014). This recent research avenue has, however, concentrated heavily on the consequences of positive and negative contact among adults and underestimated the antecedents of these positive and negative contact experiences during childhood. The distinction between positive and negative contact in childhood and adolescence may be especially critical, since these experiences are often strong predictors of contact experiences during later stages of life and may determine intergroup behaviors during adulthood (e.g., Emerson et al., 2002). Parental and adolescent contact experiences We proposed that one crucial factor behind positive and negative contact behavior in childhood would be perceived parental contact experiences. Parents are major tools of socialization during adolescence and parental norms and guidance have great impact on adolescents’ social behaviors (e.g., Brenick & Romano, 2016). Parents may socialize their children around ethnic and racial lines and give them messages about how to feel about ingroup and outgroup members, a concept that is known as ‘ethnic/racial socialization’ (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006). Previous research has shown evidence for the important role of parental attitudes and behaviors on the formation of children’s and adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors, especially as regards intergroup relationships. For example, parental and child attitudes have been found to be similar in terms of prejudice, and ideologies such as authoritarianism and social dominance orientation (Branch & Newcombe, 1986; Degner & Dalege, 2013; Duriez & Soenens, 2009; Meeusen & Dhont, 2015; Meeusen, 2014; Miklikowska, 2016). Further research has shown that parents and their children are also similar as regards intergroup behaviors including intergroup contact. Among few research studies, Meeusen (2014) demonstrated that children are more motivated to form cross-group friendships if their parents also had cross-group friendships. Accordingly, parental positive contact experiences function as extended contact experiences which promote the formation of actual cross-group friendships (e.g., Gómez, Tropp, & 77

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

Fernández, 2011) and involve the encouragement of cross-group friendships by an authority figure, parents. Confirming the latter suggestion, Edmonds and Killen (2009) demonstrated that parental messages played an important role in adolescents’ decision to befriend cross-racial peers. Moreover, compared to parental attitudes, parental intergroup behaviors may be even more predictive of adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors, since they would directly provide a positive or negative behavioral response that could be easily observed and imitated by children. Providing direct evidence for this suggestion, Smith, Maas, and Tubergen, (2015) indicated that adolescents’ cross-group friendships were predicted by parental cross-group friendships and Bagci, Cameron, Turner, Morais, Ndhlovu, and Leney (under review) demonstrated that perceived parental cross-group friendship quantity and quality were positively associated with children’s cross-group friendship quantity and quality in a multiethnic school context. We further proposed that the role of perceived parental contact experiences on adolescents’ contact experiences could be both positive and negative. While previous research has demonstrated the effects of parental negative intergroup attitudes, such as prejudice, on children’s intergroup attitudes and behaviors (Castelli, Zogmaister, & Tomelleri, 2009; Degner & Dalege, 2013; Sinclair, Dunn, & Lowery, 2005), the specific role of parental negative contact experiences is relatively understudied. Perceived parental negative intergroup contact is likely to be of importance for adolescents’ contact experiences, since intergroup conflict is also generally transmitted from one generation to the next and parents often talk with their children about ethnic and racial issues in conflictual intergroup settings (Bar-Tal, 1996; Chirot & McCauley, 2006). Consistent with this suggestion, Cernat (2017) investigated how the communication of negative intergroup behaviors by parents may influence adolescents’ attitudes and behaviors and found that increases in parental outgroup negativity were related to increases in adolescents’ outgroup negativity. Therefore, it could be expected that both perceived positive and negative parental contact experiences would be associated with adolescents’ positive and negative contact experiences in opposite directions; while perceived positive parental contact would be related to more positive and less negative contact among adolescents, perceived negative parental contact is expected to be associated with more negative and less positive contact among adolescents. Possible mediators We further proposed a number of variables that could potentially explain how perceived parental contact is related to adolescents’ contact experiences. We suggested that parents’ positive and negative contact experiences would primarily lead to the development of perspective-taking abilities among adolescents. Previous research in contact literature has demonstrated that intergroup contact is related to more positive outgroup attitudes through increased perspective-taking (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). Parental intergroup contact experiences are likely to cultivate perspective-taking skills in adolescents by decreasing ethnocentrism and providing them with a more diversified view of the world where people from other groups are understood. At the same time, parental contact experiences may directly shape adolescents’ intercultural communication skills and thereby promote their better understanding of other group members. Previous research has shown parental cross-group friendships to motivate cultural openness and parents’ positive attitudes towards diversity to promote the value of diversity among children (Bagci et al., under review; Liao, Spanierman, Harlow, & Neville, 2017). Therefore, perceiving parents to have positive contact experiences is expected to relate to more outgroup perspective-taking among adolescents, whereas perceiving parents’ negative contact experiences is expected to be associated with lower outgroup perspective-taking. A second proximal mediator we proposed is intergroup anxiety. Intergroup anxiety has long been suggested to be an obstacle behind the formation of positive intergroup relationships. Both majority and minority group members may anticipate intergroup anxiety and threat in their cross-group interactions (e.g., Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Stephan, 2014; Stephan et al., 2002; Tropp, Mazziotta, & Wright, 2016). A challenge of multiculturally diverse societies is that group members often avoid other group members just because they anticipate negative intergroup experiences. In line with this, intergroup anxiety has been found to be associated with many negative intergroup processes such as negative stereotypes and negative contact intentions (Hutchison & Rosenthal, 2011; Hutchison, Fox, Laas, Matharu, & Urzi, 2010; Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios Morrison, 2009). Parents are likely to form the immediate context for the development of intergroup anxiety in the home environment and parents’ intergroup behaviors constitute an important demonstration of whether children should anticipate anxiety and/or stress in their future cross-group interactions. In line with this, previous research indicated parental outgroup negativity to be related to adolescents’ outgroup negativity through the perception of intergroup threat (Cernat, 2017) and parental cross-group friendship quantity and quality to be negatively associated with negative physiological responses towards the formation of cross-group friendships among children (Bagci et al., under review). Hence, perceiving parents’ positive communication and interaction with others from different ethnic backgrounds is likely to imply that contact experiences do not involve negative feelings and stressful situations, whereas perceiving negative patterns of parental intergroup interactions is likely to connotate anticipation and fear of contact experiences among adolescents. We further proposed that intergroup anxiety and perspective-taking would be associated with attitudinal and behavioral responses among adolescents. Previous theoretical work (confidence in contact model) suggested that children’s cross-group friendship patterns are likely to be predicted by both intergroup anxiety and perspective-taking (Turner & Cameron, 2016). More specifically, we suggested that perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety would be related to adolescents’ contact experiences through promoting positive outgroup attitudes and approach behavioral tendencies, which would be in turn associated with more positive and less negative contact experiences among adolescents. Positive outgroup attitudes have been previously distinguished as a mediator between parental and adolescent cross-group friendships; Smith et al. (2015) found that the role of parental cross-group friendships on adolescents’ cross-group friendships is partly mediated by improved positive outgroup attitudes among adolescents. On the other hand, previous research also showed that parental cross-group friendship quantity and quality improved children’s cross-group friendship quantity and quality via increased cross-group friendship self-efficacy, which is the belief that children can successfully 78

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

Fig. 1. Hypothesized mediation model.

approach other group members to form new cross-group friendships (Cameron et al., under review). We specifically expected that perspective-taking would promote positive outgroup attitudes and approach behavioral tendencies among adolescents, whereas we proposed that intergroup anxiety would discourage them to develop more positive outgroup attitudes and generate approach behaviors. Such outgroup attitudes and behavioral tendencies are in turn likely to relate to more positive and less negative contact behaviors among adolescents (Turner & Cameron, 2016). The conceptual model proposed is presented in Fig. 1. The current study The current study aimed to investigate the role of perceived positive and negative parental contact on adolescents’ own positive and negative contact experiences, and whether such relationships were mediated by perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety, outgroup attitudes, and approach behavioral tendencies. We aimed to contribute to the contact literature in various ways. First, we studied our research questions among Turkish adolescents who constitute a relatively understudied group in terms of intergroup relationships. In recent years, Turkey, especially Istanbul has become a lot more diverse than ever with the migration of many ethnic minority group members from the East of Turkey to the West, and the influx of Syrian refugees who have now moved from refugee camps to inner city centers (Cakal, Hewstone, Güler, & Heath, 2016; Güçtürk, 2014; Tunç, 2015), providing multiple opportunities for young people to form intergroup contact. Recent research in Turkey has shown that attitudes and behaviors towards other ethnic group members are generally negative and ethnic discrimination is still a prevalent construct among ethnic minority group members (e.g., Bagci & Çelebi, 2017; Ünal, 2014). This suggests the importance of studying positive and negative contact experiences during adolescence, which is an important developmental period when parental influences on intergroup behaviors may be salient (e.g., Edmonds & Killen, 2009; Smith et al., 2015) and intergroup contact habits for adulthood are acquired (e.g., Emerson et al., 2002). Parental contact behaviors may be also especially important in the current collectivist context of Turkey where parents have been found to exert more control during adolescence, compared to their counterparts in Western countries (Hortaçsu, 1989). Therefore, understanding the sources of children’s positive and negative contact experiences during this developmental period may reveal important information for the design of intervention studies aimed at improving intergroup relationships in the society. Second, following recent research trends in intergroup contact literature which suggest the importance of studying the valence of intergroup contact experiences (e.g., Barlow et al., 2012), we distinguished between positive and negative contact experiences. Previous contact research among children and adolescents has often concentrated on positive intergroup contact experiences and commonly assessed the antecedents and consequences of cross-group friendships as the ultimate positive form of intergroup contact. Nevertheless, young people may also engage in negative intergroup contact behaviors, which are likely to be even more critical than positive intergroup contact experiences, since these are more likely to increase the salience of group membership and thereby generalize more easily to outgroup attitudes (e.g., Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Graf et al., 2014). In a similar vein, parental contact behaviors have been often conceptualized as a positively valenced process, but research suggests that negativity and conflict involved in parental cross-group relationships may be equally important in determining adolesecents’ cross-group relationship patterns (Cernat, 2017). Finally, we explored whether perceived parental contact was related to adolescent contact behaviors through facilitating/hindering perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety among adolescents and whether in turn these mechanisms trigger attitudes and behaviors among adolescents and thereby relate to adolescent contact behaviors. These suggested mediators have been often studied as key outcomes of cross-group friendships and intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), nevertheless recent research shows that mechanisms such as perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety may be also considered as antecedents of cross-group contact experiences by enabling children to be ‘contact ready’ and encouraging them to seek out new cross-group contact partners (Cameron & Turner, 2017; Turner & Cameron, 2016). Method Participants and procedure A total of 325 7th (43.3%) and 8th Year (56.7%) students were recruited for the study (Mage = 13.46, SD = .75, 148 girls and 175 79

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

boys, 2 unknown). Adolescents were asked to self-report their ethnic background with a single item after the description of ethnic group by the researchers (“An ethnic group is a group of people who share a cultural and geographical background and a common identity. According to this description, which ethnic group do you feel you belong to?”). While the majority of students reported their ethnic background as Turkish (N = 293), the rest of the students indicated their ethnic background as other (N = 32, including Kurdish, Arabic, Syrian, and Georgian). The mean socio-economic status in the sample was indicated by a single item (“Which one do you believe describes best your socio-economic status?”) and reported on a scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) was 3.14 (SD = .60). Participants were first introduced to the study in the classroom setting by the second author. The aims and the procedure involved in the study were specifically indicated as the study of intergroup relationships in the current context is often a sensitive topic. Approvals from the school administrator have been granted and were considered as caregivers’ consent. Adolescents were also asked to sign the informed consent forms to participate in the study. Pen and paper questionnaires were completed in the classroom environment under the supervision of the main researchers. The completion of the questionnaires took approximately 15–20 minutes and participants were thanked and debriefed at the end of data collection. Measures Demographic form Initially, adolescents were asked to report their gender (0 = female and 1 = male), SES, ethnic background, and mother and father education levels (ranging from 1 = illiterate, 2 = literate/no formal school, 3 = primary school, 4 = middle school, 5 = highschool, 6 = college/academy, 7 = university, 8 = master’s degree, 9 = doctoral degree, Mparental education = 3.87, SD = 1.01). Ethnic diversity was heterogeneous across clssrooms and each class included 5–10% ethnic minority group student. However, we were not exclusively focused on school/classroom friendships and the area where students were recruited included a higher number of ethnic minority populations, allowing participants the opportunity to meet cross-ethnic peers. We further asked adolescents’ perceived frequency of interethnic contact with peers from different ethnic groups (ranging from 1 = never to 7 = all the time). The mean interaction level was 4.46 (SD = 1.93), demonstrating that the majority of children had the opportunity to meet cross-ethnic peers. Perceived positive and negative parental and adolescent contact We assessed perceived parental contact experiences by using two items, one positive and one negative, adapted from previous research measuring direct positive and negative contact (e.g., Barlow et al., 2012; “How frequently do your parents have positive/ negative contact with people from other ethnic groups?). The same two items were used for adolescents’ own contact experiences (“How frequently do you have positive/negative contact with people from other ethnic groups?). The response scale ranged from 1 (never) to 7 (extremely frequently). Perceived positive and negative parental contact ratings were weakly and negatively correlated (r = -0.24, p < .001), and adolescents’ positive and negative contact ratings were moderately and negatively correlated (r = −0.41, p < .001). Outgroup perspective-taking Perspective-taking was measured by two items adapted from Aberson and Haag (2007) and assessed the extent to which adolescents could take the perspective of people from other ethnic groups (“I think I can understand the way people from other ethnic groups think” and “I can see the perspective of people from other ethnic groups”). The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The two items formed a reliable scale (r = .71, p < .01). Intergroup anxiety Intergroup anxiety was assessed by nine items adapted from Intergroup Anxiety Scale (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Participants were asked to report the level of anxiety they would feel if they were the only person from their ethnic group in an ethnically diverse classroom setting (“To what extent would you feel confident, awkward, withdrawn, happy, accepted, relaxed, tense, defensive, and impatient?”). The response scale ranged from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much), higher scores indicating greater levels of intergroup anxiety. The initial reliability of the scale was moderate with a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.67 and increased to 0.72 with the exclusion of one item (defensive), providing satisfactory reliability. Outgroup attitudes Attitudes towards other ethnic group members were assessed with the feeling thermometer (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993) measuring how warm children felt towards other ethnic group members. The response scale ranged from 0 degrees (extremely unfavourable attitudes) to 100 degrees (extremely favourable positive), higher scores indicating more positive attitudes towards other group members. Approach behavioral tendencies Approach behavioral tendencies were measured by a three item scale adapted from Turner, West, and Christie, (2013). The items assessed the extent at which adolescents were willing to engage in contact with the ones from other ethnic groups (“If I meet a person

80

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

Table 1 Means and standard deviations and correlations for the main study variables.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Parental (+) contact Parental (-) contact Adolescent (+) contact Adolescent (-) contact Perspective-taking Intergroup anxiety Outgroup attitudes Approach tendencies

Means (SD)

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

5.32 (1.67) 2.73 (1.86) 5.36 (1.63) 2.64 (1.72) 4.95 (1.56) 2.66 (1.87) 73.12 (26.56) 5.41 (1.57)

−.24*** –

.42*** −.19* –

−.15** .52*** −.41*** –

.38*** −.14* .40*** −.14* –

−.18** .16** −.25** .16** −.38*** –

.35*** −.18** .59*** −.26*** .37*** −.32*** –

.30*** −.16** .45*** −.18** .30*** −.24*** .54*** –

Notes. Parental (+) contact = Perceived parental positive contact, Parental (-) contact = Perceived parental negative contact, Adolescent (+) contact = Adolescent positive contact, Adolescent (-) contact = Adolescent negative contact. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

from another ethnic group, I would like to spend time with him/her, I would like to learn more about him/her, I would like to have a talk with him/her”). The response scale ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliability of the scale was 0.79.1 Results Preliminary analyses Means and standard deviations across main variables were presented in Table 1. Series of independent samples t-tests were run to examine gender and ethnic group status effects on the main study variables. There were significant gender differences in terms of own positive and negative contact ratings, t(316.98) = 3.31, and t(317.95) = -2.16, respectively, both p < 0.01. Girls (Mpositive = 5.66, SD = 1.42 and Mnegative = 2.41, SD = 1.56) reported more positive and less negative contact compared to boys (Mpositive = 5.08, SD = 1.75 and Mnegative = 2.82, SD = 1.81). Moreover, girls reported a significantly higher level positive outgroup attitudes, t (313) = 2.04, p < .05 (M = 76.28, SD = 25.72 for girls and M = 70.18, SD = 27.06 for boys); outgroup perspective-taking, t (318) = 2.00, p < .05 (M = 5.14, SD = 1.53 for girls and M = 4.79, SD = 1.58 for boys); and approach behavioral tendencies, t (314.71) = 5.11, p < .001 (M = 5.87, SD = 1.37 for girls and M = 5.01, SD = 1.63). Further independent samples t-tests showed that there were significant status effects (majority vs minority) on outgroup perspective-taking, t(318) = -2.04, p < .05 (M = 4.89, SD = 1.57 for the majority group and M = 5.50, SD = 1.44 for the minority group); and approach behavioral tendencies, t(42.96) = -2.88, p < .01 (M = 5.36, SD = 1.61 for the majority group and M = 5.98, SD = 1.04 for the minority group), indicating ethnic minority group members to have greater levels of perspective-taking and approach tendencies compared to the majority group members. Among other demographic factors, age and SES were not significantly associated with the study variables. We further examined whether there was any significant asymmetry in terms of quantity of intergroup contact ratings. Paired samples t-tests demonstrated that adolescents indicated a significantly higher levels of positive parental contact (M = 5.33, SD = 1.67) compared to negative parental contact (M = 2.73, SD = 1.86), t(322) = 16.78, p < .001. Similarly, there was a higher level of own positive contact (M = 5.36, SD = 1.63) than own negative contact (M = 2.65, SD = 1.72), t(320) = 17.24, p < .001, confirming the prevalence of positive contact over negative contact in terms of quantity. Structural equation models Structural equation modelling was used to test the fit of the hypothesized model, since it allows the use of multiple independent, mediator, and dependent constructs within the same analytical model. Models were tested using Mplus Version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2018; Muthén and Muthén, 1998). While positive and negative parental and child contact, and outgroup attitudes were demonstrated by observed variables as they were measured by a single item, other variables were represented by latent constructs2 . For intergroup anxiety, we used partial disaggregation method where scale items were combined into three parcels (Bagozzi & Heatherton, 1994). Model fit was achieved by obtaining the following cut-off points: χ2/df < 2, CFI ≥ .93, RMSEA ≤ .07, and SRMR ≤ .07 (Bagozzi & Yi, 2012; Marsh, Hau, & Wen, 2004). We initially assessed the fit of the measurement model, next we compared alternative models with the chi-square test of difference. Indirect effects were tested by the Model Indirect Command on Mplus (Bootstrapping results with 5000 samples and 95% CI were given in Supplementary Materials). We initially assessed the fit of the measurement model which yielded a good fit, χ2(17) = 32.61, p < .01, χ2/df = 1.92, 1 Other measures were also used in the questionnaire (General Empathy Scale and Social Distance Scale). We have not used these variables since empathy was measured at a more general level and social distance was highly correlated with approach behavioral tendencies. 2 We have included both majority and minority group participants in our analyses, since associations between variables were similar across groups. With the exclusion of ethnic minority group participants from our sample, findings revealed similar model fit indices.

81

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .05, with all observed variables significantly loading on the latent constructs. Next, we conducted a fully mediated model where indirect paths were omitted. We added a priori correlational paths between perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety as well as outgroup attitudes and approach tendencies, as these were correlated in initial analyses. This model did not fit the data well, χ2(54) = 223.14, p < .05, χ2/df = 4.13, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .08. With the addition of paths from perspective-taking and anxiety to adolescent contact variables, the model showed a better fit, χ2(50) = 204.61, p < .05, χ2/ df = 4.09, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .10, SRMR = .07, indicated by a significant chi-square test of difference, Δχ2(4) = 18.53, p < .001. In the next model, direct paths from parental contact variables to positive attitudes and behavioral tendencies were added, χ2(46) = 183.63, p < .05, χ2/df = 3.99, CFI = .90, RMSEA = .09, SRMR = .06. This model showed better fit indices demonstrated by a significant chi-square test of difference, Δχ2(4) = 20.98, p < .001. Finally, direct paths between perceived parental positive and negative contact and adolescent positive and negative contact were introduced in the model, χ2(42) = 80.35, p < .05, χ2/ df = 1.91, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04. This model yielded significantly better fit demonstrated by a significant chi-square test of difference and excellent fit indices, Δχ2(4) = 103.28, p < .001. The final model indicated that perceived parental positive contact was significantly and positively associated with perspectivetaking (β = 0.41, p < .001), positive attitudes (β = 0.18, p < .01), approach behavioral tendencies (β = 0.22, p < .01), and negatively related to intergroup anxiety (β = −0.22, p < .01). Perceived parental negative contact was not significantly associated with any of the suggested mediating processes. Perspective-taking was positively associated with both positive outgroup attitudes and approach tendencies (β = 0.16 and β = 0.19, both p < .05), whereas intergroup anxiety was negatively associated with attitudes (β = −0.16, p < .05) and approach tendencies (β = −0.23, p < .01). While positive outgroup attitudes were not significantly related to adolescents’ positive and negative contact, approach tendencies predicted significantly adolescent positive and negative contact behaviors in opposite directions (β = 0.49, p < .001 and β = −0.22, p < .01). Moreover, the direct associations between perceived parental and adolescent contact were also significant; perceived parental positive contact predicted significantly greater positive contact among adolescents (β = 0.15, p < .01) and perceived parental negative contact predicted significantly greater negative contact among adolescents (β = 0.49, p < .001). A further check of indirect effects indicated that perceived parental positive contact was related to more positive outgroup attitudes among adolescents through increased perspective-taking and decreased intergroup anxiety (β = 0.07, p < .05 and β = 0.03, p = .08). Similarly, perceived parental positive contact was related to greater approach tendencies through the same mediational processes (β = 0.08 for perspective-taking and β = 0.05 for intergroup anxiety, both p < .05). The association between perceived parental positive contact and child positive contact was directly mediated by perspective-taking (β = .07, p < .05) and approach behavioral tendencies (β = 0.10, p < .01), but not by intergroup anxiety or outgroup attitudes. The sequential mediation from perceived positive parental contact to perspective-taking and anxiety and from perspective-taking and anxiety to approach tendencies and from approach tendencies to positive adolescent contact was significant (β = 0.04 through perspective-taking, p < .05 and β = 0.03 through intergroup anxiety, p = .05). The same sequential association was also marginally significant as regards adolescent negative contact; perceived positive parental contact led to greater perspective-taking and lower intergroup anxiety which then related to approach tendencies, which consequently led to lower levels of adolescent negative contact (β = −0.02, p = .08 for perspective-taking and β = −0.01, p = .09 for intergroup anxiety). Fig. 2 displays the final mediation model. Alternative models To ascertain that our proposed model is the best model that represents our data, we applied various alternative models in which we changed the order of the variables. The first alternative model where we changed the order of our independent and dependent measures and where adolescents’ positive and negative contact experiences were treated as independent variables and perceived parental contact experiences were treated as dependent variables also revealed a good fit of data and very similar fit indices to the accepted model; χ2(42) = 77.76, p < .05, χ2/df = 1.85, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04. This shows that adolescent intergroup contact experiences may also influence how they perceive their parents’ contact experiences. In a second alternative model, we also tested whether parental contact experiences would directly relate to adolescents’ contact experiences which would in turn promote the development of greater outgroup perspective-taking, more positive outgroup attitudes, approach behavioral tendencies, as well as lower levels of intergroup anxiety, hence treating our mediators as our dependent variables and adolescents’ contact behaviors as the mediators. This alternative model also revealed acceptable fit indices, χ2(44) = 129.17, p < .05, χ2/df = 2.94, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .08, SRMR = .06, demonstrating that various relationships between variables may exist. Discussion The role of intergroup contact during childhood and adolescence is important, especially given that these intergroup experiences can be both positive and negative and may have various implications for the formation of positive developmental processes, as well as future contact behaviors in adulthood (Emerson et al., 2002). The current study investigated the role of perceived parental contact on adolescents’ contact experiences. We specifically suggested that perceiving parents’ positive and negative contact experiences would be related to adolescents’ own positive and negative contact, and perspective-taking, intergroup anxiety, outgroup attitudes and approach behavioral tendencies would function as potential mediators in these associations. Findings demonstrated that while perceived positive contact of parents was associated directly and indirectly with adolescents’ both positive and negative contact ratings, perceived parental negative contact was only directly associated with adolescents’ negative contact. The first important finding of the current study is how the perception of positive parental contact is related to adolescents’ contact 82

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

Fig. 2. Final mediation model. Notes. Final model fit: χ2(42) = 80.35, p < .05, χ2/df = 1.91, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05, SRMR = .04. Standardized coefficients and standard errors (in brackets) are displayed. Dashed lines represent non-significant paths. P (+) Contact = Perceived parental positive contact, P (-) Contact = Perceived parental negative contact, A (+) Contact = Adolescent positive contact, A (-) Contact = Adolescent negative contact. Correlations between mediators were not presented for simplicity (r = −0.46, p < .001 between perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety; r = 0.49, p < .001 between attitudes and approach tendencies). Parental positive contact was not significantly associated with adolescents’ negative contact (β = .04, p > .05) and parental negative contact was not significantly associated with adolescents’ positive contact (β = -.02, p > .05). *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

experiences. We suggested that perceived positive parental contact would lead to greater outgroup perspective-taking, as well as lower intergroup anxiety, which would in turn relate to adolescents’ attitudes and behavioral tendencies towards other groups, and these would consequently predict adolescents’ own positive and negative contact behaviors. Findings provided partial evidence for this suggestion; perceived positive parental contact was related to higher perspective-taking and lower intergroup anxiety which then related to adolescents’ more positive attitudes and approach behavioral tendencies. Positive approach tendencies, but not outgroup attitudes, then led to adolescents’ greater positive contact, as well as lower negative contact. This suggests that perceiving parents to engage in positive contact behaviors is related to basic intergroup skills and emotional responses to outgroups, which then lead to greater willingness to approach the outgroup, and consequently predict more positive and less negative contact behaviors in young people. This finding highlights the importance of positive parental contact behaviors which do not only relate to adolescents’ positive contact behaviors directly, but also inhibits indirectly the formation of negative contact behavior. Perceived positive parental contact was also directly and positively associated with adolescents’ positive, but not negative, contact behaviors, indicating that children are likely to be directly influenced by their parents’ positive behavioral responses to other group members. The second critical finding was our lack of any significant indirect association between perceived negative parental contact and adolescents’ own negative contact. It was predicted that perceived negative parental contact would be likely to increase intergroup anxiety and hinder perspective-taking skills, which would then relate to attitudes and behavioral tendencies towards other groups and consequently predict positive and negative intergroup contact among adolescents. Findings revealed that our proposed mediators did not have a significant role in these associations and perceived negative parental contact had only a direct and strong association with adolescents’ negative contact. This suggests that while perceived positive contact of parents is likely to be associated with various intergroup processes among adolescents such as outgroup perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety, and relate to adolescents’ contact behaviors (both positive and negative) directly and indirectly, the perception of parental negative contact seems to be directly related to more negative adolescent contact. This emphasizes the importance of parental negative contact which is more likely to be readily transmitted to adolescents’ negative contact behavior. In line with this, Cernat (2017) indicated that parents’ outgroup negativity was strongly related to adolescents’ outgroup negativity, especially in conflictual intergroup settings. On the other hand, one promising finding was the lack of significant associations between perceived negative parental contact and adolescents’ positive contact; although perceiving parents’ negative contact was related to adolescents’ likelihood to engage in negative contact, it does not seem to deter them from engaging in positive intergroup contact. As regards mediational effects, one interesting finding was the lack of significant findings in terms of outgroup attitudes. Previous 83

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

research has shown that parental cross-group friendships were associated with adolescents’ cross-group friendships through increased positive attitudes towards outgroups (Smith et al., 2015). Although in our correlational results, both parental and adolescent contact were related to outgroup attitudes in the expected directions, in our final mediational model, outgroup attitudes did not function as a significant mediator, probably because these effects were suppressed by the inclusion of perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety which mediated the association between parental contact and attitudes. On the other hand, approach behavioral tendencies were still a significant predictor of adolescents’ own positive and negative contact, suggesting approach tendencies to be a more critical determinant of adolescents’ contact experiences, compared to positive outgroup attitudes. Some limitations of the study should be acknowledged. One limitation of the current study was the cross-sectional nature of the data, which restricted our ability to assess the directionality of the relationships between variables. We investigated the fit of various alternative models changing the directions of the variables and these models showed that adolescents’ own contact experiences were also influential in predicting parental contact experiences. Although theoretically parents are more important socialization tools in children’s lives, previous research has also confirmed that children may also socialize their parents, functioning as sources of extended contact for their parents (Degner & Dalege, 2013; Windzio, 2015). On the other hand, previous research has also shown that perspective-taking, intergroup anxiety, and most often outgroup attitudes are the outcomes of cross-group friendships and contact (e.g., Feddes et al., 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Turner et al., 2007). Nevertheless, this literature demonstrated that associations between contact and attitudes is bidirectional (e.g., Binder et al., 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), and perspective-taking and intergroup anxiety may prepare children to be contact-ready, which then reinforces the formation of more positive intergroup processes and attitudes (Cameron & Turner, 2017). Future research should investigate the role of parents’ contact on their children’s attitudes and behaviors longitudinally. Another methodological issue is the use of our measure for parental contact experiences, which was based on the subjective perception of children. Previous research has shown that parental and children attitudes were associated regardless of the source of report, yet these associations were indicated to be more strongly correlated when these are reported by children (Degner & Dalege, 2013). Therefore, direct and indirect associations between parental and adolescent contact experiences in the current study may be overestimated. Nevertheless, parental own reports may be subject to self-representation bias, which reduces the reliability of parental self-reports (Edmonds & Killen, 2009). On the other hand, although we based our measurements on observable contact behaviors rather than attitudes which are less likely to be extracted from parental observation (Bagci et al., under review), we measured ‘perceived’ parental contact experiences rather than adolescents’ direct observation of such parental contact (how frequently they physically observed them to engage in contact behaviors). Further research may investigate simultaneously the role of parents’ own intergroup contact reports and their children’s reports of parental intergroup contact on children’s intergroup contact behaviors to have a fuller understanding of the concordance between parental and child positive and negative intergroup contact experiences. Moreover, we used single items for the measurement of both perceived parental and adolescent positive and negative contact, which may not adequately assess these contact forms. More appropriate and specifically behavioral measures that describe positive and negative contact with various characteristics could be used in similar studies among adolescent samples. Another issue to discuss is the generalizability of the findings across other intergroup contexts. Turkey has been home of various ethnic minority groups over the years and have experienced perpetrated interethnic conflict between various groups. Particularly, interethnic relationships between Turkish majority and Kurdish minority group members involve visible power differences and conflict, which often influence negatively the formation of positive intergroup attitudes and behaviors (Bagci & Çelebi, 2017). Although we did not assess the specific ethnic group contacted by children and parents, both parental and child positive and negative contact experiences may have different implications depending on the specific ethnic outgroup contacted. Moreover, we had a low sample size for ethnic minority group members which did not allow for meaningful comparisons across ethnic group status. For example, previous research shows that ethnic/racial socialization and parental messages about race and ethnicity is more prevalent among minority group members (e.g., Hughes et al., 2006) and intergroup contact in general has stronger effects on outgroup attitudes among majority group members compared to minority group members (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Nevertheless, for both majority and minority group members, the perception of parental contact behaviors are equally likely to determine adolescents’ own behaviors through the same processes. Future research may further investigate the possible differences across adolescents’ ethnic group status. Other variables that are not included in the current study may be further suggested as critical mechanisms whereby perceived parental contact experiences are related to adolescents’ positive and negative contact. For example, it has been found that parental cross-group friendship quality and quantity were related to children’s cross-group friendships through cultural openness (Bagci et al., under review). Previous research has shown that contact deprovincializes individuals by distancing them from ingroup memberships and thereby making them less ethnocentric (Pettigrew, 2009). The perception of parental contact may have a similar effect such that children perceiving their parents to have positive intergroup contact may become less ethnocentric and thereby approach more positively their cross-ethnic peers, whereas perceiving parents to have negative contact may enhance attachment to the ingroup. Further research may investigate how parental contact may influence children’s and adolescents’ distance and attitudes towards the ingroup. In summary, the current study investigates whether and how perceived parental positive and negative contact relate to adolescents’ own positive and negative contact experiences among a sample of Turkish adolescents. Furthermore, we tested perspectivetaking, intergroup anxiety, outgroup attitudes, and approach behavioral tendencies as potential mediators in these associations. Findings indicated that perceived parental negative contact was directly associated with higher levels of negative contact among adolescents, whereas perceived parental positive contact was related to adolescents’ contact directly and indirectly through greater perspective-taking and lower intergroup anxiety, which in turn related to greater approach behavioral tendencies, consequently leading to more positive and less negative intergroup contact behaviors in adolescents. These findings highlight the important role of parental intergroup contact behaviors, both positive and negative, on adolescents’ intergroup contact behaviors. 84

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

Previous research has shown the importance of cultivating confidence in contact in order to promote better developmental outcomes and more positive intergroup relationships among children and adolescents (Turner & Cameron, 2016). Parents have been found to be an important aspect of promoting children’s self-efficacy beliefs to engage in positive contact behaviors and thereby relate to actual levels of adolescents’ contact behaviors (Bagci et al., under review). The current research adds to this literature by highlighting the specific role of both perceived positive and negative contact of parents on adolescents’ positive and negative contact. This calls for future research that may investigate how parents may contribute to the promotion of positive and avoidance of negative intergroup contact among children and adolescents. Findings imply that it is especially critical to consider the role of perceived negative parental contact, which may be readily transmitted to adolescents’ negative contact. At the applied level, intervention studies that ultimately aim to promote better cross-ethnic relationships among adolescents may involve parents as key socialization agents and target reducing parents’ negative contact behaviors through contact interventions and awareness programs that highlight the critical function of perceived parental contact behaviors on adolescents’ own contact behaviors. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2019. 01.002. References Abbott, N., & Cameron, L. (2014). What makes a young assertive bystander? The effect of intergroup contact, empathy, cultural openness, and in‐group bias on assertive bystander intervention intentions. The Journal of Social Issues, 70, 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12053. Aberson, C. L., & Haag, S. C. (2007). Contact, perspective taking, and anxiety as predictors of stereotype endorsement, explicit attitudes, and implicit attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 179–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207074726. Allport (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Árnadóttir, K., Lolliot, S., Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2018). Positive and negative intergroup contact: Interaction not asymmetry. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 784–790. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2365. Bagci, S. C., & Çelebi, E. (2017). Cross‐group friendships and outgroup attitudes among Turkish–Kurdish ethnic groups: does perceived interethnic conflict moderate the friendship‐attitude link? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 47, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12413. Bagci, S. C., & Turnuklu, A. (2018). Intended, unintended, and unknown consequences of contact: The role of positive–Negative contact on outgroup attitudes, collective action tendencies, and psychological well-being. Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000355. Bagci, S. C., Cameron, L., Turner, R., Morais, C., Ndhlovu, M., Leney, A. (under review). The role of perceived parents’ cross-ethnic friendships on children’s crossethnic friendships: Self-efficacy and cultural openness as mediators. Bagci, S. C., Kumashiro, M., Rutland, A., Smith, P. K., & Blumberg, H. (2017). Cross-ethnic friendships, psychological well-being, and academic outcomes: Study of South Asian and White children in the UK. The European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 14, 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2016.1185008. Bagci, S. C., Rutland, A., Kumashiro, M., Smith, P. K., & Blumberg, H. (2014). Are minority status children’s cross‐ethnic friendships beneficial in a multiethnic context? The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 32, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12028. Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self‐esteem. Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1, 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519409539961. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 8–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0278-x. Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R., Harwood, J., ... Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953. Bar-Tal, D. (1996). Development of social categories and stereotyping in early childhood: The case of “the Arab” concept of formation, stereotype, and attitudes by Jewish children in Israel. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 341–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(96)00023-5. Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., ... Leyens, J. (2009). Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three European countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470. Branch, C. W., & Newcombe, N. (1986). Racial attitude development among young Black children as a function of parental attitudes: A longitudinal and cross-sectional study. Child Development, 712–721. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130348. Brenick, A., & Romano, K. (2016). Perceived peer and parent out‐group norms, cultural identity, and adolescents’ reasoning about peer intergroup exclusion. Child Development, 87, 1392–1408. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12594. Brown, R., & Hewstone, H. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Vol. Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 37, (pp. 255– 343). New York: Elsevier. Brown, R., Eller, A., Leeds, S., & Stace, K. (2007). Intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.384. Cakal, H., Hewstone, M., Güler, M., & Heath, A. (2016). Predicting support for collective action in the conflict between Turks and Kurds: Perceived threats as a mediator of intergroup contact and social identity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19, 732–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216641303. Cameron, L., & Turner, R. (2017). Intergroup contact among children. In L. Vezzali, & S. Stathi (Eds.). Intergroup contact theory: Recent developments and future directions (pp. 151–168). Routledge: Taylor & Francis. Cameron, L., Turner, R., Bagci, S. C., Morais, C., & Carby, A. (Under review). ‘Cross-ethnic friendship self-efficacy’: A new predictor of cross-ethnic friendships among adolescents in an ethnically diverse school. Castelli, L., Zogmaister, C., & Tomelleri, S. (2009). The transmission of racial attitudes within the family. Developmental Psychology, 45, 586–591. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0014619. Cernat, V. (2017). Trajectories of interethnic contact and prejudice in a four-waves study of Romanian teenager–parent pairs. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43, 2669–2687. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1271699. Chirot, D., & McCauley, C. (2006). Why not kill them all? The logic and prevention of mass political murder. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Degner, J., & Dalege, J. (2013). The apple does not fall far from the tree, or does it? A meta-analysis of parent–child similarity in intergroup attitudes. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 1270–1304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031436. Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2009). The intergenerational transmission of racism: The role of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 906–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.05.014. Edmonds, C., & Killen, M. (2009). Do adolescents’ perceptions of parental racial attitudes relate to their intergroup contact and cross-race relationships? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12, 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098773. Emerson, M. O., Kimbro, R. T., & Yancey, G. (2002). Contact theory extended: The effects of prior racial contact on current social ties. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00112. Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie, & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.). Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 137–166). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

85

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 69 (2019) 76–86

S.C. Bagci, H. Gungor

Feddes, A. R., Noack, P., & Rutland, A. (2009). Direct and extended friendship effects on minority and majority children’s interethnic attitudes: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 80, 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01266.x. Fischer, M. J. (2008). Does campus diversity promote friendship diversity? A look at interracial friendships in college. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 631–655. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2008.00552.x. Gómez, A., Tropp, L. R., & Fernández, S. (2011). When extended contact opens the door to future contact: Testing the effects of extended contact on attitudes and intergroup expectancies in majority and minority groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210391119. Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052. Graham, S., Munniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2014). Psychosocial benefits of cross‐ethnic friendships in urban middle schools. Child Development, 85, 469–483. https:// doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12159. Güçtürk, Y. (2014). İnsanlığın kaybı: Suriye’deki iç savaşın insan hakları boyutu [Loss of humanity: Human rights aspect of war in Syria] (Report)Ankara, Turkey: Seta Yayıncılık. Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Voci, A., Hamberger, J., & Niens, U. (2006). Intergroup contact, forgiveness, and experience of “the Troubles” in Northern Ireland. The Journal of Social Issues, 62, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2006.00441.x. Hortaçsu, N. (1989). Targets of communication during adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-1971(89)90076-6. Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents’ ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747. Hutchison, P., & Rosenthal, H. E. (2011). Prejudice against Muslims: Anxiety as a mediator between intergroup contact and attitudes, perceived group variability and behavioural intentions. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34, 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419871003763312. Hutchison, P., Fox, E., Laas, A. M., Matharu, J., & Urzi, S. (2010). Anxiety, outcome expectancies, and young people’s willingness to engage in contact with the elderly. Educational Gerontology, 36, 1008–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/03601271003723586. Jasinskaja-Lahti, I., Mähönen, T. A., & Liebkind, K. (2012). Identity and attitudinal reactions to perceptions of inter-group interactions among ethnic migrants: A longitudinal study. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02059.x. Kawabata, Y., & Crick, N. R. (2008). The role of cross-racial/ethnic friendships in social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 44, 1177–1183. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0012-1649.44.4.1177. Lease, A. M., & Blake, J. J. (2005). A comparison of majority‐race children with and without a minority‐race friend. Social Development, 14, 20–41. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1467-9507.2005.00289.x. Liao, H. Y., Spanierman, L. B., Harlow, A. J., & Neville, H. A. (2017). Do parents matter? Examination of White college students’ intergroup experiences and attitudes. The Counseling Psychologist, 45, 193–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000017694337. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2. Mazziotta, A., Rohmann, A., Wright, S. C., Tezanos‐Pinto, D., & Lutterbach, S. (2015). (How) does positive and negative extended cross‐group contact predict direct cross‐group contact and intergroup attitudes? European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 653–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2110. Meeusen, C. (2014). The parent-child similarity in cross-group friendship and anti-immigrant prejudice: A study among 15-year old adolescents and both their parents in Belgium. Journal of Research in Personality, 50, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.03.001. Meeusen, C., & Dhont, K. (2015). Parent–Child similarity in common and specific components of prejudice: The role of ideological attitudes and political discussion. European Journal of Personality, 29, 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2011. Miklikowska, M. (2016). Like parent, like child? Development of prejudice and tolerance towards immigrants. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 95–116. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjop.12124. Munniksma, A., & Juvonen, J. (2012). Cross-ethnic friendships and sense of social-emotional safety in a multiethnic middle school: An exploratory study. MerrillPalmer Quarterly, 58, 489–506. https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2012.0023. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2018). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., Hewstone, M., & Neumann, D. L. (2018). Seeking and avoiding intergroup contact: Future frontiers of research on building social integration. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12, e12422. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12422. Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2010). Negative intergroup contact makes group memberships salient: Explaining why intergroup conflict endures. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1723–1738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210388667. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65. Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread to noncontacted outgroups? Social Psychology, 40, 55–65. https://doi. org/10.1027/1864-9335.40.2.55. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-3514.90.5.751. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.504. Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001. Sinclair, S., Dunn, E., & Lowery, B. (2005). The relationship between parental racial attitudes and children’s implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 283–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.003. Smith, S., Maas, I., & Tubergen, F. (2015). Parental influence on friendships between native and immigrant adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 580–591. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12149. Stearns, E., Buchmann, C., & Bonneau, K. (2009). Interracial friendships in the transition to college: Do birds of a feather flock together once they leave the nest? Sociology of Education, 82, 173–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070908200204. Stephan, W. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1088868314530518. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. The Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios Morrison, K. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.). Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43– 59). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tropp, L. R., Mazziotta, A., & Wright, S. C. (2016). Recent developments in intergroup contact research: Affective process, group status and contact valence. In C. G. Sibley, & F. K. Barlow (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tunç, A.Ş. (2015). Refugee behavior and its social effects: An assessment of Syrians in Turkey. Turkish Journal of TESAM Academy, 2, 29–63. Turner, R. N., & Cameron, L. (2016). Confidence in contact: A new perspective on promoting cross‐group friendship among children and adolescents. Social Issues and Policy Review, 10, 212–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12023. Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 369–388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369. Turner, R. N., West, K., & Christie, Z. (2013). Out‐group trust, intergroup anxiety, and out‐group attitude as mediators of the effect of imagined intergroup contact on intergroup behavioral tendencies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, E196–E205. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12019. Ünal, S. (2014). Türkiye’nin beklenmedik konukları: Öteki bağlamında yabancı göçmen ve mülteci deneyimi [Unexpected guests of Turkey: Immigrant and refugee experiences as the other]. Zeitschrift für die Welt der Türken/Journal of World of Turks, 6, 65–89. Visintin, E. P., Green, E. G., Pereira, A., & Miteva, P. (2017). How positive and negative contact relate to attitudes towards Roma: Comparing majority and high‐status minority perspectives. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 27, 240–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2309. Windzio, M. (2015). Immigrant children and their parents: Is there an intergenerational interdependence of integration into social networks? Social Networks, 40, 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.11.002. Wölfer, R., Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., & Zalk, M. (2016). Developmental dynamics of intergroup contact and intergroup attitudes: Long‐term effects in adolescence and early adulthood. Child Development, 87, 1466–1478. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12598.

86